Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752624AbZISUPO (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:15:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752535AbZISUPN (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:15:13 -0400 Received: from nbd.name ([88.198.39.176]:51210 "EHLO ds10.mine.nu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752520AbZISUPN (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:15:13 -0400 Message-ID: <4AB53BCC.503@openwrt.org> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:15:08 +0200 From: Felix Fietkau User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Michael Buesch , Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements References: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu> <20090907182629.GA3484@elte.hu> <20090908074825.GA11413@elte.hu> <200909081645.18505.mb@bu3sch.de> <20090918112454.GE9930@elte.hu> <4AB39D3A.3000204@openwrt.org> <20090919180124.GK5366@elte.hu> <4AB52667.6020608@openwrt.org> <20090919193956.GA21719@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20090919193956.GA21719@elte.hu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1356 Lines: 29 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Felix Fietkau wrote: >> I did some tests with BFS v230 vs CFS on Linux 2.6.30 on a different >> MIPS device (Atheros AR2317) with 180 MHz and 16 MB RAM. When running >> iperf tests, I consistently get the following results when running the >> transfer from the device to my laptop: >> >> CFS: [ 5] 0.0-60.0 sec 107 MBytes 15.0 Mbits/sec >> BFS: [ 5] 0.0-60.0 sec 119 MBytes 16.6 Mbits/sec >> >> The transfer speed from my laptop to the device are the same with BFS >> and CFS. I repeated the tests a few times just to be sure, and I will >> check vmstat later. > > Which exact mainline kernel have you tried? For anything performance > related running latest upstream -git (currently at 202c467) would be > recommended. I used the OpenWrt-patched 2.6.30. Support for the hardware that I tested with hasn't been merged upstream yet. Do you think that the scheduler related changes after 2.6.30 are relevant for non-SMP performance as well? If so, I'll work on a test with latest upstream -git with the necessary patches when I have time for it. - Felix -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/